German authorities took the rare step of attempting to enforce their domestic online speech regulations against a foreign company with no physical or legal presence in the country. The Federal Office of Justice in Bonn issued an enforcement notice demanding that social media platform Gab pay a $37,508 fine tied to alleged violations of Germany‘s highly controversial Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). The fine, originally assessed in early 2021, has now become enforceable, triggering one of the most visible clashes yet over how far nations should be able to govern speech on the global internet.
Gab, a Pennsylvania-based social network known for its light-touch approach to content moderation and free speech ethos, has refused to pay Germany’s penalty. The founder and CEO of the company has publicly said that Gab will not pay the fine, claiming Germany does not have jurisdiction over a U.S. corporation that doesn’t have even a subsidiary, office, or legal entity on German soil. This refusal heightens an increasing debate about cross-border online censorship, national sovereignty, and bounds with regard to digital regulation in a connected world.
The core contention revolves around Germany’s Network Enforcement Regulation introduced in 2017 to address illegal online content, including hate speech and misinformation, through the removal of clearly illegal content by large online platforms within specific times. Failure to comply would attract heavy penalties; also, it makes it a requirement for these affected platforms to have a local presence in Germany to be compliant. Although its claimed rationale is to specifically address harmful online content, critics have accused NetzDG of allowing large online platforms to act as speech police, encouraging them to over-remove legal online content to avoid penalties.
Such is the situation in Germany, which is part of a wider phenomenon where some administrations are virtually governing the internet, or at least part of it, as if it were an extension of their sovereign territory. Regulators’ attempts to use the number of users instead of actual physical locations to determine regulatory compliance exemplify this phenomenon. Regarding Gab’s situation, the enforcement action by the German government actually cites a violation of regulatory procedures rather than specific content or users, which gives an inflated sense of the law’s power, especially in its extension beyond its territorial space.
However, it is important to note that Gab’s failure to pay is not necessarily an act of bureaucratic insubordination but represents a broader philosophical and legal debate about free expression online. As a platform, Gab believes that if it were to comply with German censorship laws, it would essentially become beholden to foreign speech laws that are incompatible with U.S. constitutional free speech provisions. Such a scenario appeals to some of the broader philosophical concerns overtly represented by digital rights activists and how some national laws such as those in Europe might potentially impinge upon personal freedoms if applied beyond national boundaries.
In Germany which is rated free on internet freedom, the situation with digital communication has become more regulated in the past few years. In fact, Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2025 report suggests a downward trend for Germany with respect to its internet freedom score indicating that there has been an increase in self censorship convictions for online criticism of politicians and an expansion of surveillance authority. This gives us an idea of the backdrop for some tech and advocacy groups’ reservations about expanding the application of the NetzDG law no matter how protective of content.
Gab claims to “make every effort to ensure illegal activities are not carried out on the Gab platform” and “comply[s] voluntarily to law enforcement requests.” However, the company draws a line at complying with illegal censorship from other countries. In the case of Germany’s fine demand from Gab, the country does not attempt to outline a specific office in the country that a Gab office would be expected to follow.
If Gab fails to comply with the ruling by not paying the fine, it may mean that Germany takes further steps maybe by imposing other sanctions while there are debates on the validity of speech laws outside of their jurisdictions in the U.S. and Europe. Be that as it may, the ruling is evidence of the emerging clash of views on the regulation of speech on the internet.
